Quote:Then, if things become too outrageous on the field, it might be time to step back and consider if maybe limiting headgear to a one-inch sweat band in your team colors, for everyone, isn't a better idea, after all.

And I say let's see if that actually happens. a. it won't. Hardly any communities are that religiously diverse that there'll be some kind of smorgasbord of dress out there and b. even if there was, *hey, who gives a fuck?* it's a sport for crying out loud. Not the military. What the fuck is "outrageous" on the field? Tackling the ref I guess.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(11-05-2017 02:26 PM)morondog Wrote: ORLY? Giving people something they want is now racism? Whereas imposing some ideal version of dress that you prefer is equitable treatment. Gotcha. ETA: I missed this the first time, not only is it racism but it's *institutionalised* racism Because I'm apparently both a racist and an institution

Please resist the temptation to infer from general information either personal accusation or insult.

mdog, I teach civil rights. I've been doing it for a long time. The definition of "discrimination" that I've been using -- as I tried to make clear in an earlier post -- is the legal definition, from federal statutes. Specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, as refined by numerous subsequent amendments and additional antibias statutes: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); Fair Housing Act of 1968; Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA); Section 29, Code of Federal Regulations 1604; 1605; 1625; 1630; 1640-1641; and multiple others.

I get that. You being a lawyer probably have a much better handle on these things. But laws are just consensus social rules. Prior to all these acts, women and races were legally discriminated against. So legal definitions ain't all that there is.

Quote:"Institutionalized Racism" (also called Structural Racism or Systemic Racism) is a specific technical term which has come into vogue in the last couple of years, to describe the lack of opportunities for various protected classes, in public and political contexts which which are not practicing overt discrimination, and which may otherwise be bastions of affirmative action.

I am aware of what institutional racism is. It's a hot-button topic in South Africa (where I live). Business, educational institutions, the military - everywhere in South Africa there's often clear examples of it. People passed over for promotion. Entire boards of companies with one token black man. The thing that I find ridiculous is this idea that by allowing some minor rule change to accommodate some kids who'll otherwise be disadvantaged in that they will choose not to play basketball, you're in fact inflicting institutional racism on this school.

Quote:It is basically discrimination that is built into the structure of institutions and the way they function, which often go unrecognized through ignorance, negligence, or any of a variety of other reasons. Just a few months ago I participated in an intensive three week training in Institutionalized Racism for a non-profit child abuse prevention agency. Dr. Johnny Lake was one of the trainers.

I'm possibly a bit sensitive to this shit - being white in SA does have it's challenges. It seemed to me a gross stretch to call this racism, and the fact that I was advocating and you opposed... I inferred. My apologies.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(11-05-2017 08:21 PM)Robvalue Wrote: Does anyone have any information about whether they would allow different types of headgear too? It seems to me that this is the important point here. If they aren't, or its only "religious" headgear, then I would agree it's a form of positive discrimination. To be honest, I doubt anyone else is raring to put a lot of stuff on their head anyhow.

Theoretically we can say no one is forcing them to wear these things, but in reality that's not true. I imagine they could face severe consequences from their family/society if they didn't. And even if that wasn't the case, they've most likely been indoctrinated since birth to think that they must wear it. So expecting them to just give it up isn't realistic. Please correct me here if I'm wrong.

What remains is to see whether the rule that stops them wearing it needs to be there in the first place. In my opinion it doesn't, but it should be applied equally to all if removed. If there was a good reason why not, then fair enough. But I don't see one.

FWIW, I pretty much agree with everything you say there.

Quote:Of course, all headgear would have to be secure and non-advantageous, but this is already obvious when you consider the shoes people wear. Ones that will keep flying off or that have rocket boosters on them wouldn't be allowed. To me, allowing reasonable headgear isn't any different from allowing people to wear different shoes. We arbitrarily decide what is and isn't "the uniform", and it seems to me that "not wearing something on your head" is a weird part of a uniform.

Some uniform requirements may be arbitrary, but I think most of them are practical. There are good reasons, for example, for not allowing football cleats on a basketball court, or not allowing players to wear 12-foot scarfs or boas.

Most uniform regs I've seen, though, don't really say much (if anything) about what you can't wear; they just specify what you are supposed to wear, the general idea being that everyone starts out with the same equipment.

(12-05-2017 12:59 AM)morondog Wrote: I get that. You being a lawyer probably have a much better handle on these things.

Ouch! Let's clear THAT up right away: I am not a lawyer; I don't even play one on TV.

But I am a trained civil rights advocate, pretty well-versed on US civil rights laws, and I do give civil rights trainings for agencies in the social service sector.

Quote:But laws are just consensus social rules. Prior to all these acts, women and races were legally discriminated against. So legal definitions ain't all that there is.

True. And one can argue whether certain of the base laws need to be changed. In the US, I think there has been great progress -- especially since the 1950s -- in that most of the federal civil rights legislation that made a positive impact on real problems. The issues are by no means completely resolved, though, and there is still occasional back-sliding by state and local jurisdictions.

Quote:I am aware of what institutional racism is. It's a hot-button topic in South Africa (where I live). Business, educational institutions, the military - everywhere in South Africa there's often clear examples of it. People passed over for promotion. Entire boards of companies with one token black man. The thing that I find ridiculous is this idea that by allowing some minor rule change to accommodate some kids who'll otherwise be disadvantaged in that they will choose not to play basketball, you're in fact inflicting institutional racism on this school.

OK, that explains a bit. I suspect that the institutional racism in the US is probably a good deal more subtle than it is in South Africa.
For that very reason, it's harder to identify and weed out.

I can see where from your perspective my charge might seem like a ridiculous over-reach.

From my perspective, the way you just kind of casually dismissed the charge seemed like a textbook example of the kind of denial I've been examining for the past year.

In fact, we may just have experienced a bit of culture-clash.

Quote:I'm possibly a bit sensitive to this shit - being white in SA does have it's challenges. It seemed to me a gross stretch to call this racism, and the fact that I was advocating and you opposed... I inferred. My apologies.

I still fail to see how allowing head gear, as pictured in the op harms anyone. It offers no advantage to either team. It only allows girls who otherwise might have to sit on the sidelines to participate.

I still think it's a great solution.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(12-05-2017 01:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: I still fail to see how allowing head gear, as pictured in the op harms anyone. It offers no advantage to either team. It only allows girls who otherwise might have to sit on the sidelines to participate.

I still think it's a great solution.

I acknowledge that the Muslim head scarves don't favour either team Mom, but it's a classic example of Islam virtually demanding that a basically secular society accepts confrontational Islamic symbolism in an otherwise religiously neutral environment—a public basketball court.

It's another of the insidious ways that Islam attempts to integrate (not assimilate) itself into Western societies, and then later on make further unrealistic demands to alter that society in order to satisfy Islam.

The obvious way for those girls to participate in basketball or other sports is to simply not wear their religious headgear. I don't attempt to push my atheistic viewpoint on them—why should I let them push their offensive dark ages theism on me without resistance?

As a matter of interest, we have the iniquity of taxpayer-funded, public swimming pools in Melbourne (Cities of Casey, Monash, and Greater Dandenong) that're closed to all men for specific daytime periods in order to allow Muslim women to swim without wearing their religious rags. This means in effect that our Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has allowed these three councils to legally discriminate against men.

(13-05-2017 05:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: I acknowledge that the Muslim head scarves don't favour either team Mom, but it's a classic example of Islam virtually demanding that a basically secular society accepts confrontational Islamic symbolism in an otherwise religiously neutral environment—a public basketball court.

Do you have orthodox jews? Do you see them in public? What's your take on their dress code? Do you extend the same scrutiny to them?

Oh, that's right, you won't see them play basketball at all in your "basically secular" society because they largely refrain from mingling with others at all.

On the same lines, do you want to talk about confrontational jewish symbolism in an otherwise religiously neutral environment? Let's see how that goes over.

(13-05-2017 05:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: The obvious way for those girls to participate in basketball or other sports is to simply not wear their religious headgear. I don't attempt to push my atheistic viewpoint on them—why should I let them push their offensive dark ages theism on me without resistance?

... You're in Australia, several thousand km away from them. What precisely are they pushing on you? And even if you were right there, you're telling me that you are that threatened by some woman wearing a headscarf that you'd scream for her to be not allowed to play basketball, when you're not even going to get on the court with her?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.